Re: [OSPF] IETF 67 OSPF WG Meeting minutes - Correct file appended

Richard Ogier <> Mon, 13 November 2006 19:06 UTC

Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjh8n-0000lS-OE; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:06:45 -0500
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjh8l-0000fO-L1 for; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:06:43 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjh8k-0007Xs-CG for; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:06:43 -0500
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1Gjh8d-0001n2-00; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:06:35 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:06:30 -0800
From: Richard Ogier <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1 (emach0202)
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Acee Lindem <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] IETF 67 OSPF WG Meeting minutes - Correct file appended
References: <> <> <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f66b12316365a3fe519e75911daf28a8
Cc: OSPF List <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>


I am not sure I understand what you mean.  The MDR and OR/SP
drafts have already been evaluated exensively via GTNetS
simulations.  INRIA's solution has not yet participated
in any such evaluation. So if we require all the drafts
to participate in the GTNetS evaluation (which was the
original plan two years ago), then we *are* holding all
drafts to the same experimental publication criteria.

Or, are you saying that we should give INRIA a free pass
to avoid participating in the GTNetS evaluation?
I really don't think this would be fair, and therefore
seriously doubt that the consensus would agree with this.

I don't think the voting at the meeting clearly distinguished
between the two options of accepting 2 versus 3 drafts.
This distinction was not made explicit at the meeting.


Acee Lindem wrote:

> Hi Richard,
> I think we agreed upon a process to move along and we should
> continue to hold all the drafts to the same experimental publication
> criteria. I guess the point was that we should not limit the number to
> 2 if we're going to publish more than 1. Without injecting too much 
> judgment
> on the MPR draft's maturity, did everyone at the meeting hear the
> same message?
> Thanks,
> Acee
> Richard Ogier wrote:
>>>      Acee: Show hands on what should be done:
>>>            - Quit working on OSPF MANET: none
>>>            - Continue to drive to consensus: none
>>>            - Refine drafts and publish as experimental: 2/3's of people
>>>              in room. To be validated on list.
>> Acee,
>> Correct me if I am wrong, but since the latest version of INRIA's
>> draft was available only last week, and since previous versions did
>> not fully specify the protocol (as pointed out by Phil Spagnolo in
>> his 9/28/06 post to the ospf-manet list), it has not yet been decided
>> that INRIA's draft will be published as experimental.
>> Moreover, since INRIA has not participated in the GTNetS simulation
>> comparison that Boeing has been conducting for the last two
>> years, in which the MDR draft has been compared to Cisco's
>> OR/SP drafts (results can be found at Boeing's OSPF-MANET website
>> ),
>> it is only fair that we should do such a comparison with INRIA's draft
>> before deciding to publish it as experimental.
>> In fact, that has been the plan since the Dallas IETF meeting in March,
>> and Philippe agreed to this in his message of 4/5/06:
>> Philippe Jacquet wrote on 4/5/06:
>> > Yes it would be great to synchronize our efforts on GTNet.
>> > Let's see how to proceed.
>> Now, 7 months later, INRIA has implemented their solution in GTNetS,
>> so the next step would be for Boeing to work with INRIA to make
>> sure the code is debugged and implemented in a manner that allows
>> a fair comparison, just as Boeing has done with the OR/SP and
>> MDR solutions over the last two years.  Hopefully, this work can
>> be completed by the next IETF meeting.
>> I think it is reasonable and fair to require such a comparison
>> to be done before INRIA's draft is accepted, especially
>> since they promised to synchronize efforts 7 months ago.
>> Let me know if you agree or disagree.
>> IMO, to give INRIA a free pass and avoid such a comparison
>> would be unfair to those of us who worked hard for the last two
>> years on the GTNetS simulation effort.
>> Richard

OSPF mailing list